On Sun, 5 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 05 May 2002 10:01:57 EDT, the world broke into rejoicing as > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > It is sunday morning and I have been musing about some PostgreSQL issues. As > > some of you are aware, my dot com, dot died, and I am working on a business > > plan for a consulting company which, amongst other things, will feature > > PostgreSQL. As I am working on the various aspects, some issue pop up about > > PostgreSQL. > > > > Please don't take any of these personally, they are only my observations, if > > you say they are non issues I would rather just accept that we disagree than > > get into a nasty fight. They *are* issues to a corporate acceptance, I have > > been challenged by IT people about them. > > > > (1) Major version upgrade. This is a hard one, having to dump out and > > restore a database to go from 7.1 to 7.2 or 7.2 to 7.3 is really a > > hard sell. If a customer has a very large database, this represents a > > large amount of down-time. If they are running on an operating system > > with file-size limitations it is not an easy task. It also means that > > they have to have additional storage which amount to at least a copy > > of the whole database. > > All of these things are true, and what you should throw back at the IT > people is the question: > > "So what do you do when you upgrade from Oracle 7 to Oracle 8? How > about the process of doing major Informix upgrades? Sybase? Does it > not involve some appreciable amounts of down-time?"
This is most definately the wrong way of thinking about this. I'm not saying that Mark sets a simple task, but the goals of Postgres should never be limited to the other products out there. Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
